PLEASE NOTE:
*
CCNet 115/2003 - 3 December 2003
RUSSIA DEALS BLOW TO KYOTO AS E.U. BACKSLIDES
---------------------------------
A senior Kremlin official declared Tuesday that Russia would not
ratify the
international treaty requiring cuts in the emissions of gases
linked to global
warming, delivering what could be a fatal blow to years of
diplomatic efforts.
The official, Andrei N. Illarionov, said in remarks to reporters
and in a
subsequent interview that President Vladimir V. Putin had told a
group of
European businessmen on Tuesday that the treaty, known as the
Kyoto Protocol,
ran counter to Russia's national interests.
--Steven Lee Myers and Andrew C.
Revkin, The New York Times, 3 December 2003
A number of questions have been raised about the link between
carbon dioxide
and climate change, which do not appear convincing. And clearly
it sets very
serious brakes on economic growth which do not look justified.
--Andrei N. Illarionov, The New York
Times, 3 December 2003
We seem, in other words, to be in trouble. Either we lay hands on
every available
source of fossil fuel, in which case we fry the planet and
civilisation collapses,
or we run out, and civilisation collapses. The only rational
response to both the
impending end of the oil age and the menace of global warming is
to redesign our
cities, our farming and our lives. But this cannot happen without
massive political
pressure, and our problem is that no one ever rioted for
austerity.
--George Monbiot, The Guardian, 2
December 2003
(1) RUSSIA DEALS BLOW TO KYOTO AS E.U. BACKSLIDES
Environmental News Network, 3 December 2003
(2) RUSSIA TO REJECT PACT ON CLIMATE, PUTIN AIDE SAYS
The New York Times, 3 November 2003
(3) TOP SCIENTISTS CONCLUDE HUMAN ACTIVITY IS AFFECTING GLOBAL
WARMING
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
(4) CO2 EMISSIONS, CATASTROPHES AND RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE
CO2 Science Magazine, 3 December 2003
(5) BACK TO THE DARK AGES: APOCALYPTIC SCARE-MONGERING, AND CALLS
FOR RIOTS AND REVOLUTION
The Guardian, 2 December 2003
(6) A BIRTHDAY BLAST FROM THE SUN
Paal Brekke <pbrekke@esa.nascom.nasa.gov>
(7) EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY PROJECTS SUPPORTS KYOTO PROTOCOL
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
(8) AND FINALLY: AMAZON FOREST PART OF THE CO2 EMISSIONS PROBLEM
- BETTER TO CUT IT DOWN?
U.N. Wire, 2 December 2003
========
(1) RUSSIA DEALS BLOW TO KYOTO AS E.U. BACKSLIDES
Environmental News Network, 3 December 2003
http://www.enn.com/news/2003-12-03/s_10950.asp
By Oliver Bullough and Robin Pomeroy, Reuters
MOSCOW/BRUSSELS - Russia dealt a new blow to a U.N. plan to curb
global warming Tuesday as even European Union supporters of the
landmark pact admitted backsliding.
A senior Russian official said Moscow, left with an effective
veto over the entire Kyoto Protocol after the United States
pulled out in 2001, could not accept the 1997 plan in its current
form.
"The Kyoto Protocol places significant limitations on the
economic growth of Russia," Andrei Illarionov, an adviser to
President Vladimir Putin on economic issues, told reporters in
Moscow. "Of course, in its current form, this protocol
cannot be ratified," he said. He did not spell out what
changes might bring a yes from the Russian parliament.
The United Nations, hosting 180-nation climate talks in Milan,
Italy, from Dec. 1 to 12 to work out details of Kyoto, said one
official's views did not amount to a formal rejection by Moscow.
Illarionov is a leading Kyoto skeptic in Russia.
Environmentalists dismissed the remarks as bluster before
Sunday's elections to the Russian Duma, which formally has the
final say over Kyoto in Russia.
"While Illarionov's opinion will sound like music to the
ears of the U.S. administration, it's far too early to be reading
the funeral notice of the Kyoto Protocol," Greenpeace's
Stephen Guilbeault said.
Russia holds the key because Kyoto can only enter into force if
it is ratified by nations accounting for 55 percent of developed
countries' emissions of carbon dioxide. Kyoto has reached 44
percent, making Russia's 17 percent a crucial vote after the
United States, the world's No. 1 polluter, pulled out its 36
percent stake.
E.U. Slips
In what could be a more serious setback, the E.U. Commission said
only Sweden and Britain of the E.U.'s 15 member states were on
track to meet the E.U.'s Kyoto goals.
Kyoto aims to curb emissions of gases like carbon dioxide spewed
from power plants and cars that are blamed for blanketing the
planet and driving up global temperatures. The E.U. has agreed to
cut emissions by 8 percent below 1990 levels by 2008 to 2012.
In the E.U. rankings, Spain was at the bottom, with Denmark,
Austria, Belgium, and Ireland also lagging badly.
E.U. nations have been among the leading proponents of Kyoto
along with Japan, blaming human-induced global warming for
triggering more frequent catastrophes like heat waves, floods, or
tornadoes and for melting ice that could raise sea levels.
"Unless more is done, the E.U. as a whole and the majority
of its member states will miss their Kyoto targets,"
Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom said. "This is
serious. Time is running out."
She said she had written to member states to urge them to take
new measures. Kyoto aims to promote a shift to renewable energies
like wind, solar, or hydrogen power while encouraging the closure
of fossil-fuel smokestacks.
Under Kyoto, countries could buy or sell the right to pollute
depending on whether their emissions were higher or lower than
envisaged.
Many economists argue Moscow stands to gain from Kyoto because
Russia's Soviet-era industries have collapsed, leaving it with
spare emissions quotas that could be worth billions of dollars.
In Milan, officials brushed aside Illarionov's skepticism.
"This is a senior adviser to the president; it is not a
formal rejection like we saw with America," said Michael
Williams, a U.N. climate talks spokesman. "We remain
optimistic that ... Russia will ratify."
Two months ago, Putin backed away from Moscow's previous promises
to ratify soon. He said a warmer climate might benefit Russian
farming and could help people save money on fur coats in winter.
Copyright 2003, Reuters
===========
(2) RUSSIA TO REJECT PACT ON CLIMATE, PUTIN AIDE SAYS
The New York Times, 3 November 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/international/europe/03KYOT.html?hp
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ANDREW C. REVKIN
MOSCOW, Dec. 2 - A senior Kremlin official declared Tuesday that
Russia would not ratify the international treaty requiring cuts
in the emissions of gases linked to global warming, delivering
what could be a fatal blow to years of diplomatic efforts.
The official, Andrei N. Illarionov, said in remarks to reporters
and in a subsequent interview that President Vladimir V. Putin
had told a group of European businessmen on Tuesday that the
treaty, known as the Kyoto Protocol, ran counter to Russia's
national interests.
"We shall not ratify," said Mr. Illarionov, the senior
Kremlin adviser on economic affairs and an outspoken critic of
the treaty, apparently ending more than a year of uncertainty
about Russia's position.
The treaty, completed in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 after two years of
intense diplomatic wrangling, would require major industrialized
countries, as a group, to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and
other heat-trapping greenhouse gases. By 2012, the countries
would have to reduce the gases by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels.
While 120 countries have ratified the treaty, it can take effect
only when approved by enough countries to account for 55 percent
of 1990 emissions from the industrialized world. Without Russia
or the United States, that threshold cannot be met. In 1990, the
United States accounted for 36.1 percent of emissions, and Russia
for 17.4 percent.
Russia signed the treaty in 1997, as the United States did under
President Bill Clinton, and expressed support for it until about
a year ago. The Bush administration rejected the pact,
essentially giving Russia veto power over its enactment.
Barring a reversal by Russia, the treaty appears all but dead,
leaving uncertain the future of international cooperation on the
question of global warming.
Russian officials had increasingly voiced concerns about the
economic costs of curtailing such emissions, which come mainly
from burning fossil fuels. They had also questioned whether the
warming was caused by human activities and, even if it was,
whether it posed any great risks.
But this was the first time a seemingly unequivocal statement
rejecting the treaty has been made by a top official citing Mr.
Putin.
"A number of questions have been raised about the link
between carbon dioxide and climate change, which do not appear
convincing," Mr. Illarionov said in the interview. "And
clearly it sets very serious brakes on economic growth which do
not look justified."
Echoing President Bush and many in Congress, Russia has also
complained that major polluters like China and India are not
bound by the treaty, giving them an unfair economic advantage.
But mostly, experts say, Russia is bothered by its declining
financial return from joining the treaty.
After the collapse of Soviet-era industry, Russia's emission of
gases fell to an estimated 30 percent below 1990 levels. But its
Kyoto target for 2012 was its 1990 levels - meaning it already
far exceeded its required reductions. Thus, Russia stood to gain
financially from selling credits that would allow other countries
to exceed the treaty's limits. Some major Russian industries
lobbied for the protocol, seeing it as a way to use the credits
to modernize aging plants.
Without the participation of the United States - which would have
been a major buyer of credits - many officials here concluded
that the potential economic gains were sharply reduced. With the
Russian economy increasingly reliant on oil and gas production
and exports, the officials concluded that the treaty's limits
could become a drag on economic growth in the future.
Some independent analysts agreed that there was now little
economic incentive in the treaty for Russia. "Their stake
has been transformed from tens of billions of dollars over five
years to tens of millions, if that," said Prof. David G.
Victor of Stanford University, an expert on the treaty.
The Russian statements reverberated on Tuesday in Milan, where
hundreds of delegates from around the world were in the second
day of a two-week meeting on the pact and an underlying 1992
climate treaty that contains no binding provisions.
Some participants said Russia's apparent retreat necessitated a
re-appraisal of the Kyoto-style approach, which requires prompt
emissions curbs in wealthy countries while excusing all
developing countries from obligations.
But some environmentalists and European and United Nations
officials said they remained hopeful that Mr. Illarionov's
remarks did not reflect Russia's official position.
"This is just the latest statement in a long line of
predictions by Illarionov which have failed to eventuate,"
said Aleksei Kokorin, the head of climate change programs in
Russia for the World Wildlife Fund. "He opposed the Russian
energy strategy, which was then adopted in May."
Jos Delbeke, who leads the climate change unit of the European
Commission, noted that Russia stood to lose the chance for big
new investments by Western European countries in improving its
power plants, pipelines and other facilities as part of what are
called joint implementation projects under the treaty.
"Our private sector is lining up for this," he said.
"It seems against the interests of Russia not to go into
these."
But it would be highly unusual for the government to have left
Mr. Illarionov's remarks - which were carried by the official
Russian Information Agency, a state propaganda arm - uncorrected
if they were not representative of its position.
His statements brushed aside impassioned appeals from the United
Nations and from countries, especially in Europe, that have
embraced the protocol as the best way to reduce emissions that
many scientists link to harmful climate change.
If Russia's rejection is indeed final, countries could proceed
independently with projects to curb emissions or enter into new
talks toward ways to spur international efforts, experts said.
The European Union has said that, with or without the protocol,
it will proceed in 2005 with a trading plan allowing member
states to reach targets by investing in emissions-curbing
projects in other states. But the overall effect would almost
assuredly be to delay any significant new initiatives to reduce
greenhouse-gas emissions.
Although the Russian statements appeared to align Russia with the
American position on the treaty, Bush administration officials
declined to comment Tuesday. Previously, administration officials
have said they have not urged Russia to join in rejecting the
pact.
But senior administration officials have been using the new round
of climate talks to strongly criticize the Kyoto treaty and
promote their alternate vision of how to deal with climate
change. In several statements in recent days, American officials
said that the science pointing to risks remained murky and that
the only way to solve the problem was with long-term research on
new nonpolluting energy options.
Many climate experts have concluded that there is ample evidence
that substantial increases in concentrations of the gases could
disrupt ecosystems, storm patterns and agriculture in many parts
of the world.
Despite having rejected the Kyoto Protocol, the administration
sent more than 60 officials to Milan - one of the largest
American delegations ever to the climate-treaty talks - to
promote alternative approaches to curbing emissions growth.
The protocol is an outgrowth of the first international climate
treaty, the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, which
committed industrialized nations to work voluntarily to avoid
"dangerous" interference with the climate system, but
never defined "dangerous."
After signers in 1995 recognized that emissions were continuing
to grow, negotiations began toward a binding agreement,
culminating in 1997 with the current protocol. The targets for
individual countries varied depending on their contribution to
the problem, and intensive bargaining was aimed at being sure no
country was getting too great a competitive advantage.
As recently as last year, President Putin indicated Russia's
willingness to ratify the accord. Since then, however, he and
other officials have wavered and stalled, raising questions about
whether the country stood to benefit from ratification,
especially without the participation of the United States and
without mandatory limits on developing countries.
At a climate conference in Moscow in September, Mr. Putin said
Russia remained committed to addressing climate change, but he
also shocked many conferees with a quip suggesting global warming
could benefit a country hardened by its harsh winters. "We
shall save on fur coats and other warm things," he said.
Steven Lee Myers reported from Moscow and Andrew C. Revkin from
New York.
Copyright 2003, The New York Times
============
(3) TOP SCIENTISTS CONCLUDE HUMAN ACTIVITY IS AFFECTING GLOBAL
WARMING
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
Office of Legislative and Public Affairs
National Science Foundation
Arlington, Virginia
Media contacts:
Cheryl Dybas, NSF
(703) 292-7734, cdybas@nsf.gov
Anatta, NCAR
(303) 497-8604, anatta@ucar.edu
Program contact:
Jay Fein
(703) 292-8527, jfein@nsf.gov
December 2, 2003
NSF PR 03-129
Top Scientists Conclude Human Activity is Affecting Global
Climate
Arlington, Va. -- Two of the nation's best-known atmospheric
scientists, after
reviewing extensive research by their colleagues, say there is no
doubt human
activities are having measurable -- and increasing -- impacts on
global climate.
Results of the study, which appears in the December 5th issue of
the journal
Science as part of a "State of the Planet" assessment,
cites atmospheric
observations and multiple computer models to paint a detailed
picture of the
climate changes likely to buffet Earth in coming decades,
including rising
temperatures and an increase in extreme weather events such as
flooding.
Thomas Karl of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville,
N.C., and
Kevin Trenberth, director of the Climate Analysis Section at the
National Center
for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., conclude that
industrial
emissions have been the dominant influence behind climate change
for the past 50
years, overwhelming natural forces. The most important of these
emissions is
carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that traps solar radiation and
warms the
planet. Trenberth's research is funded by the National Science
Foundation (NSF),
the independent federal agency that supports fundamental research
and education
across all fields of science and engineering.
"There is no doubt the composition of the atmosphere is
changing because of
human activities, and today greenhouse gases are the largest
human influence on
global climate," they write. "The likely result is more
frequent heat waves,
droughts, extreme precipitation events, and related impacts,
e.g., wildfires,
heat stress, vegetation changes, and sea-level rise which will be
regionally
dependent."
"Many important climate research accomplishments over the
past several decades
have led to major improvements in understanding and predicting
our climate,"
said Jay Fein, director of NSF's climate dynamics program.
"Karl and Trenberth
summarize those accomplishments in terms of what we have learned
about our
climate and the many factors that force it. As they point out,
however, there
still remain important uncertainties, both in terms of climate
forcing and
climate response. Addressing the uncertainties will require
continuing research
and model development, underpinned by high-quality, long-term
global
environmental observations and social and economic data."
Karl and Trenberth estimate that, between 1990 and 2100, global
temperatures
will rise by 1.7 C to 4.9 C (3.1 F-8.9 F). The increase would
have widespread
impacts on society and the environment, including melting the
great ice sheets
of Greenland and Antarctica and inundating the world's coasts.
The authors base
their estimate on computer model experiments by a number of
climate scientists,
observations of atmospheric changes and recorded climate changes
over the past
century.
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen by 31 percent
since
pre-industrial times -- from 280 parts per million by volume
(ppmv) to over 370
ppmv today. Other human activities, such as emissions of sulfate
and soot
particles and the development of urban areas, have significant
but more
localized climate impacts. Such activities sometimes cause
temperatures to rise
or fall, but not by enough to offset the impact of greenhouse
gases.
If societies successfully cut emissions and stabilized carbon
dioxide levels in
the atmosphere, temperatures would still increase by an estimated
0.5 C over a
period of decades, Karl and Trenberth warn. This is because
greenhouse gases are
slow to cycle out of the atmosphere. "Given what has
happened to date and is
projected in the future, significant further climate change is
guaranteed," the
authors state.
If current emissions continue, the world would face the fastest
rate of climate
change in at least the past 10,000 years. This could potentially
alter ocean
current circulations and radically change existing climate
patterns. Moreover,
certain natural processes would likely accelerate the warming. As
snow cover
melts away, for example, the darker land and water surface would
absorb more
solar radiation, further increasing temperatures.
Karl and Trenberth say more research is needed to pin down both
the global and
regional impacts of climate change. Scientists have yet to
determine the
temperature impacts of increased cloud cover or how changes in
the atmosphere
will influence El Nino, the periodic warming of Pacific Ocean
waters that
affects weather patterns throughout much of the world. The
authors call for
multiple computer model studies to address the complex aspects of
weather and
climate. The models must be able to integrate all components of
Earth's climate
system -- physical, chemical and biological. This, in turn, will
require
considerable international cooperation and establishment of a
global climate
monitoring system to collect data.
"Climate change is truly a global issue, one that may prove
to be humanity's
greatest challenge," the authors conclude.
-NSF-
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal
agency that
supports fundamental research and education across all fields of
science and
engineering, with an annual budget of nearly $5.3 billion. NSF
funds reach all
50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 universities and
institutions. Each
year, NSF receives about 30,000 competitive requests for funding,
and makes
about 10,000 new funding awards. The NSF also awards over $200
million in
professional and service contracts yearly.
==============
(4) CO2 EMISSIONS, CATASTROPHES AND RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE
CO2 Science Magazine, 3 December 2003
http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rapidclimatechange.htm
Climate alarmists such as O'Neill and Oppenheimer (2002)
regularly invoke the mere possibility of an abrupt-and-rapid
warming resulting from the ongoing rise in the air's CO2
concentration as sufficient reason to implement the Kyoto
Protocol. Since almost anything is possible, however, it
makes much more sense to consider an event's likelihood when
trying to decide what to do about it. One good way of doing this
within the context of potential global warming is to see how
often rapid climatic changes have occurred in the past and under
what circumstances they occurred, especially with respect to the
air's CO2 content. Hence, we take this tack in the
following paragraphs.
Staufer et al. (1998) derived a common timescale for earth's last
glacial period based on records of atmospheric methane
concentrations obtained from Greenland and Antarctica, which they
then used to compare climatic oscillations inferred from
Greenland ice cores with variations in atmospheric CO2
concentration inferred from Antarctic ice cores. Doing so,
they documented a number of rapid warmings of several degrees
Centigrade that were followed by slower coolings that returned
the climate to full glacial conditions, over which entire cycle
the air's CO2 concentration typically varied by less than 10
ppm. Furthermore, the weak correspondence between the two
parameters was considered to have been caused by the change in
climate, rather than by the change in CO2, suggesting that
variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration had absolutely
nothing to do with the large and abrupt warming events.
Rahmstorf (2003) analyzed the GISP2 ice core record from
Greenland with respect to the timing of Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO)
warm events, finding these abrupt climate changes "appear to
be paced by a 1,470-year cycle with a period that is probably
stable to within a few percent." With 95% confidence,
for example, the period is maintained to better than 12% over at
least 23 cycles during the time interval of 51 to 10 thousand
years before present. In fact, Rahmstorf reports that
"the five most recent events, arguably the best-dated ones,
have a standard deviation of only 32 years (2%)." This
finding, in his words, "strongly supports the idea that the
events are paced by a regular 1,470 year cycle," and he says
that "the highly precise clock points to an origin outside
the Earth system," which once again lets CO2 off the hook as
being the cause of the warmings.
On a much finer timescale, Overpeck and Webb (2000) discuss what
we know about the abrupt-and-rapid climatic variability
associated with the ENSO phenomenon during the current
interglacial or Holocene. They note that shifts in ENSO
frequency during this period occurred at both interannual and
multidecadal intervals, providing evidence that "ENSO may
change in ways that we do not yet understand," but which are
clearly not related to atmospheric CO2 concentration. In
fact, they say data from corals suggest that "interannual
ENSO variability, as we now know it, was substantially reduced,
or perhaps even absent," during the middle of the Holocene,
when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were not much different from
what they were immediately before or after that period.
Moving slightly closer to the present, Rietti-Shati et al. (1998)
derived a 3,000-year climatic history for a high-altitude region
on Mount Kenya in East Africa for the period 4200-1200 years
before present via oxygen isotope analysis of biogenic opal
extracted from a sediment core retrieved from a shallow
lake. Among numerous small temperature fluctuations, they
detected a significant warming that occurred between 2,300 and
2,000 years ago, when temperatures rose approximately 4°C in
just three centuries, consistent with other proxy temperature
records of Mount Kenya's surroundings. Again, however,
there were no dramatic fluctuations of atmospheric CO2
concentration associated with this event.
In China, Yafeng et al. (1999) analyzed high-resolution records
of ð18O obtained from the Guliya ice cap of the Qinghai-Tibet
Plateau to derive a 2000-year temperature history of that part of
the world. Perhaps their most striking discovery was the
identification of 33 abrupt climatic shifts on the order of 3°C
that took place over the course of two or three decades, among
which were "several large ones," including a 7°C
decrease between 250 and 280 AD and a 7°C increase between 550
and 580 AD, when, of course, the air's CO2 concentration was low
and unchanging.
Schuster et al. (2000) employed electrical conductivity
measurements, scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive
analysis, and isotopic and chemical analyses to study a 160-meter
ice core removed from Wyoming's Upper Fremont Glacier, finding,
in their words, that "the termination of the Little Ice Age
was abrupt with a major climatic shift to warmer temperatures
around 1845 A.D." They also note that "a
conservative estimate for the time taken to complete the Little
Ice Age climatic shift to present-day climate is about 10
years," over which period the atmosphere's CO2 concentration
rose by about 1 ppm.
Last of all, we note the study of Cronin et al. (2000), who
studied the salinity gradient across sediment cores from
Chesapeake Bay, which is the largest estuary in the United Sates,
in an effort to examine, not temperature, but precipitation
variability over the past thousand years. A high degree of
decadal and multidecadal variability between wet and dry
conditions was noted throughout the record, where regional
precipitation totals fluctuated by 25 to 30%, often in extremely
rapid shifts occurring over about a decade.
These several observations demonstrate that abrupt-and-rapid
climate changes have occurred numerous times in the past, all
without any help from changes in the air's CO2 content. In
fact, there is no conclusive evidence that any such climate
changes have ever been produced by either increases or decreases
in atmospheric CO2 concentration such as are capable of being
produced by the actions of man. Hence, to suggest we must
ratify the Kyoto Protocol to protect the planet from another such
abrupt-and-rapid climate change seems highly irrational.
References
Cronin, T., Willard, D., Karlsen, A., Ishman, S., Verardo, S.,
McGeehin, J., Kerhin, R., Holmes, C., Colman, S. and Zimmerman,
A. 2000. Climatic variability in the eastern United
States over the past millennium from Chesapeake Bay
sediments. Geology 28: 3-6.
O'Neill, B.C. and Oppenheimer, M. 2002. Dangerous
climate impacts and the Kyoto Protocol. Science 296:
1971-1972.
Overpeck, J. and Webb, R. 2000. Nonglacial rapid
climate events: Past and future. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences USA 97: 1335-1338.
Rahmstorf, S. 2003. Timing of abrupt climate change:
A precise clock. Geophysical Research Letters 30:
10.1029/2003GL017115.
Rietti-Shati, M., Shemesh, A. and Karlen, W. 1998. A
3000-year climatic record from biogenic silica oxygen isotopes in
an equatorial high-altitude lake. Science 281: 980-982.
Schuster, P.F., White, D.E., Naftz, D.L. and Cecil, L.D.
2000. Chronological refinement of an ice core record at
Upper Fremont Glacier in south central North America.
Journal of Geophysical Research 105: 4657-4666.
Staufer, B., Blunier, T., Dallenbach, A., Indermuhle, A.,
Schwander, J., Stocker, T.F., Tschumi, J., Chappellaz, J.,
Raynaud, D., Hammer, C.U. and Clausen, H.B. 1998.
Atmospheric CO2 concentration and millennial-scale climate change
during the last glacial period. Nature 392: 59-62.
Yafeng, S., Tandong, Y. and Bao, Y. 1999. Decadal
climatic variations recorded in Guliya ice core and comparison
with the historical documentary data from East China during the
last 2000 years. Science in China Series D-Earth Sciences
42 Supp.: 91-100.
Copyright © 2003. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change
============
(5) BACK TO THE DARK AGES: APOCALYPTIC SCARE-MONGERING, AND CALLS
FOR RIOTS AND REVOLUTION
The Guardian, 2 December 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1097622,00.html
George Monbiot
The oil industry is buzzing. On Thursday, the government approved
the development of the biggest deposit discovered in British
territory for at least 10 years. Everywhere we are told that this
is a "huge" find, which dispels the idea that North Sea
oil is in terminal decline. You begin to recognise how serious
the human predicament has become when you discover that this
"huge" new field will supply the world with oil for
five and a quarter days.
Every generation has its taboo, and ours is this: that the
resource upon which our lives have been built is running out. We
don't talk about it because we cannot imagine it. This is a
civilisation in denial.
Oil itself won't disappear, but extracting what remains is
becoming ever more difficult and expensive. The discovery of new
reserves peaked in the 1960s. Every year we use four times as
much oil as we find. All the big strikes appear to have been made
long ago: the 400m barrels in the new North Sea field would have
been considered piffling in the 1970s. Our future supplies depend
on the discovery of small new deposits and the better
exploitation of big old ones. No one with expertise in the field
is in any doubt that the global production of oil will peak
before long.
The only question is how long. The most optimistic projections
are the ones produced by the US department of energy, which
claims that this will not take place until 2037. But the US
energy information agency has admitted that the government's
figures have been fudged: it has based its projections for oil
supply on the projections for oil demand, perhaps in order not to
sow panic in the financial markets.
Other analysts are less sanguine. The petroleum geologist Colin
Campbell calculates that global extraction will peak before 2010.
In August, the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes told New Scientist
that he was "99% confident" that the date of maximum
global production will be 2004. Even if the optimists are
correct, we will be scraping the oil barrel within the lifetimes
of most of those who are middle-aged today.
The supply of oil will decline, but global demand will not. Today
we will burn 76m barrels; by 2020 we will be using 112m barrels a
day, after which projected demand accelerates. If supply declines
and demand grows, we soon encounter something with which the
people of the advanced industrial economies are unfamiliar:
shortage. The price of oil will go through the roof.
As the price rises, the sectors which are now almost wholly
dependent on crude oil - principally transport and farming - will
be forced to contract. Given that climate change caused by
burning oil is cooking the planet, this might appear to be a good
thing. The problem is that our lives have become hard-wired to
the oil economy. Our sprawling suburbs are impossible to service
without cars. High oil prices mean high food prices: much of the
world's growing population will go hungry. These problems will be
exacerbated by the direct connection between the price of oil and
the rate of unemployment. The last five recessions in the US were
all preceded by a rise in the oil price.
Oil, of course, is not the only fuel on which vehicles can run.
There are plenty of possible substitutes, but none of them is
likely to be anywhere near as cheap as crude is today. Petroleum
can be extracted from tar sands and oil shale, but in most cases
the process uses almost as much energy as it liberates, while
creating great mountains and lakes of toxic waste. Natural gas is
a better option, but switching from oil to gas propulsion would
require a vast and staggeringly expensive new fuel
infrastructure. Gas, of course, is subject to the same
constraints as oil: at current rates of use, the world has about
50 years' supply, but if gas were to take the place of oil its
life would be much shorter.
Vehicles could be run from fuel cells powered by hydrogen, which
is produced by the electrolysis of water. But the electricity
which produces the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. To fill
all the cars in the US would require four times the current
capacity of the national grid. Coal burning is filthy, nuclear
energy is expensive and lethal. Running the world's cars from
wind or solar power would require a greater investment than any
civilisation has ever made before. New studies suggest that
leaking hydrogen could damage the ozone layer and exacerbate
global warming.
Turning crops into diesel or methanol is just about viable in
terms of recoverable energy, but it means using the land on which
food is now grown for fuel. My rough calculations suggest that
running the United Kingdom's cars on rapeseed oil would require
an area of arable fields the size of England.
There is one possible solution which no one writing about the
impending oil crisis seems to have noticed: a technique with
which the British and Australian governments are currently
experimenting, called underground coal gasification. This is a
fancy term for setting light to coal seams which are too deep or
too expensive to mine, and catching the gas which emerges. It's a
hideous prospect, as it means that several trillion tonnes of
carbon which was otherwise impossible to exploit becomes
available, with the likely result that global warming will
eliminate life on Earth.
We seem, in other words, to be in trouble. Either we lay hands on
every available source of fossil fuel, in which case we fry the
planet and civilisation collapses, or we run out, and
civilisation collapses.
The only rational response to both the impending end of the oil
age and the menace of global warming is to redesign our cities,
our farming and our lives. But this cannot happen without massive
political pressure, and our problem is that no one ever rioted
for austerity. People tend to take to the streets because they
want to consume more, not less. Given a choice between a new set
of matching tableware and the survival of humanity, I suspect
that most people would choose the tableware.
In view of all this, the notion that the war with Iraq had
nothing to do with oil is simply preposterous. The US attacked
Iraq (which appears to have had no weapons of mass destruction
and was not threatening other nations), rather than North Korea
(which is actively developing a nuclear weapons programme and
boasting of its intentions to blow everyone else to kingdom come)
because Iraq had something it wanted. In one respect alone, Bush
and Blair have been making plans for the day when oil production
peaks, by seeking to secure the reserves of other nations.
I refuse to believe that there is not a better means of averting
disaster than this. I refuse to believe that human beings are
collectively incapable of making rational decisions. But I am
beginning to wonder what the basis of my belief might be.
· The sources for this and all George Monbiot's recent articles
can be found at www.monbiot.com.
===========
(6) A BIRTHDAY BLAST FROM THE SUN
Paal Brekke <pbrekke@esa.nascom.nasa.gov>
A timely eruption from the Sun today in in progress. Timely since
today it is
8 years since the launch of SOHO. Images of todays eruption can
be ssen here:
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs/20031202_1212_eit_195.gif
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs/20031202_1126_c2.gif
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/javagif/gifs/20031202_1218_c3.gif
Since its launch on 2 December 1995, the Solar and Heliospheric
Observatory
(SOHO) has provided an unparalleled breadth and depth of
information about the
Sun, from its interior, through the hot and dynamic atmosphere,
and out to the
solar wind. SOHO has continued to revolutionize our
understanding of the Sun
with its 24 hour per day observations of our daylight star.
The SOHO spacecraft
was nearly lost in space in 1998. Thanks to one of the most
amazing rescue
operations in space ever, the satellite is still in very good
shape and
continues to deliver excellent science data.
The main objectives of the SOHO mission was to study the
structure and dynamics
of the solar interior, the heating of the solar corona, and the
acceleration of
the solar wind. Five years later, science teams from around
the world have made
great strides toward answering these "big three"
questions. At the same time,
SOHO's easily accessible, spectacular data and basic science
results have
captured the imagination of the space science community and the
general public
alike. This presentation will summarize some of the
scientific highlights and
illustrate how SOHO acts like a a watchdog for solar
storms. Furthermore,
accurate monitoring the energy output from the Sun is important
for
understanding any natural valiability of the Earth's climate.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Paal Brekke,
SOHO Deputy Project Scientist (European Space Agency - ESA)
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Email: pbrekke@esa.nascom.nasa.gov
Mail Code 682.3, Bld. 26, Room 1, Tel.:
1-301-286-6983/301 996 9028 (cell)
Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA.
Fax: 1-301-286-0264
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOHO WEB: http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/
PERSONAL WEB: http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/localinfo/brekke.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
=============
(7) EUROPEAN SPACE AGENCY PROJECTS SUPPORTS KYOTO PROTOCOL
Andrew Yee <ayee@nova.astro.utoronto.ca>
ESA News
http://www.esa.int
28 November 2003
Forest mapping from space supports Kyoto Protocol
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change delegations
from across
the world meet in Milan next week to address the problem of
global warming --
and ESA will be there to brief them on how space can assist in
this task.
The official title of the gathering is the Ninth Session of the
Conference of
the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC
COP 9). It is the latest in a series of UNFCCC meetings where
signatories meet
to discuss various aspects of implementing the 1997 Kyoto
Protocol as well as
settling on future actions to come.
ESA is hosting a side event on the evening of Wednesday 3
December at the
conference entitled Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry
(LULUCF) from Space:
Support to monitoring and reporting for Kyoto Protocol Annex I
countries.
The Kyoto Protocol has only to be ratified by Russia in order to
come into
force. It charges all developed nations -- known as Annex I
countries -- to
monitor and work to reduce their overall carbon dioxide
emissions.
A vital part of this is accurately measuring forested areas of
their territory.
Forests function as reservoirs of carbon, so if countries plant
new forests they
can gain 'carbon credits' to offset against their emissions.
Conversely, extra
carbon dioxide is released rapidly into the atmosphere if forests
are burnt or
cut down.
At the ESA COP 9 side event, ESA Director of Earth Observation
José Achache will
brief attendees on using space to gather environmental
intelligence, and
existing national users of ESA services will present their
experiences.
ESA commenced working in the area of environmental conventions
two years ago,
within activity known as Treaty Enforcement Services using Earth
Observation
(TESEO). One of the projects initiated -- named TESEO Carbon --
studied the
potential of Earth Observation for supporting implementation of
the Kyoto Protocol.
Three workshops, known as TUBES, gathered the convention
secretariats and the
users of the TESEO projects in order to guide and consolidate the
work of the
projects, which finished at the end of 2002 with a demonstration
of some
prototype products and recommendations to ESA.
On the basis of these results, another project, Kyoto Inventory,
started at the
end of last year with the aim of developing and demonstrating at
a large scale
-- full or partial national coverage -- information services
supporting the
national reporting under the Kyoto Protocol for five European
countries: Italy,
Switzerland, Finland, Norway and the Netherlands.
The first results of this project for selected test sites within
the five
countries are now ready. In parallel, another project called
Forest Monitoring
initiated in early 2003 within ESA's programme devoted to Global
Monitoring for
Environment Security (GMES) services and equally (although not
exclusively)
addressing information services for the Kyoto Protocol reporting,
has produced
its first results.
Four users of these last two projects will present at the side
event their needs
and motivations, what the projects have provided to them so far,
their
evaluations and their perspectives for the future.
Dimitri Lalas, Director of the National Observatory of Athens,
and Deputy Head
of the Greek Delegation will commence the briefings, followed by
José Romero of
the Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Landscape, then
Antonio
Lumicisi of the Italian Ministry of Environment and Territory,
concluding with
Joseph Racapé of France's Interministerial Task-Force for
Climate Change.
Related articles
* ESA providing Kyoto estimates of French Guiana's tropical
forests
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOBRS1VED_index_0.html
* Earth observation finds a role in environmental treaties
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/ESAON3OED2D_index_0.html
=========
(8) AND FINALLY: AMAZON FOREST PART OF THE CO2 EMISSIONS PROBLEM
- BETTER TO CUT IT DOWN?
U.N. Wire, 2 December 2003
http://www.unwire.org/UNWire/20031202/449_10888.asp
Parts of the Brazilian Amazon forest might be emitting more
carbon dioxide than is absorbed, Brazilian and U.S. scientists
said in a study published Friday in the magazine Science, adding
that previous studies on the issue probably overstated the amount
of the gas absorbed by the forest.
During a three-year inquiry, researchers from Universidade de Sao
Paulo, the National Institute of Space Research and Harvard
University measured levels of emission and absorption of the gas
in the National Forest of Tapajos, in Para, nothern Brazil.
The scientists found that carbon dioxide emissions actually
increased during rainy seasons, when decomposing foliage, set off
by a high degree of humidity, released their carbon-rich
emissions into the air. Scientists had previously believed that
emissions only increased during dry seasons (Reinaldo Jose Lopes,
Folha de Sao Paulo, Nov. 28, U.N. Wire translation).
One of the main proposals of the Kyoto Protocol, which targets a
decrease of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, is to slow
deforestation and increase incentives for planting new
forests. According to BBC Brasil, the result of the latest
study supports previous statements from some environmentalists
that politicians developed the protocol based on the now dubious
role forests play in cutting gas emissions (BBC Brasil, Nov. 28,
U.N. Wire translation).
-----------
CCNet is a scholarly electronic network. To
subscribe/unsubscribe,
please contact the moderator Benny Peiser <b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk>.
Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and
educational
use only. The attached information may not be copied or
reproduced for
any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright
holders.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the
articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not
necessarily
reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the moderator of
this
network.
*
KYOTO EXPOSES RUSSIAN POWER
STRUGGLE
<http://ad.ca.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v2|3068|3|0|%2a|e%3B6629616%3B0-0%3B1%3B4930343%3B4307-300|250%3B3946585|3964481|1%3B%3B%3fhttp://www.allstream.com/sears>
Russia 'still open' to Kyoto pact
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3288683.stm
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3288683.stm>
By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent
<http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/999999.gif>
Global temperature simulation climateprediction.net<http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39325000/jpg/_39325418_heat_203_climate.jpg>
Kyoto aims to slow the move to a warmer world
Russia says it has not yet reached a decision on whether to
ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the global climate treaty.
It has effectively disowned an official who only yesterday said
Russia would not ratify, and it is still in the process of coming
to a decision.
The official, Andrei Illarionov, said Russia would not ratify
Kyoto in its present form, citing economic reasons.
The treaty cannot acquire the force of international law unless
Russia, one of the world's big polluters, ratifies it.
Mr Illarionov, President Putin's chief adviser on economic
issues, said in Moscow: "Of course, in its present form,
this protocol cannot be ratified. It is impossible to undertake
responsibilities that place serious limits on the country's
growth."
But Russia's deputy economy minister, Mukhamed Tsikhanov, said
the country was moving towards the treaty.
He said: "There are no decisions about ratification apart
from the fact that we are moving towards ratification.
"I cannot comment on Illarionov, but we do not have any
information in the government about the fact that a decision has
been made."
US reluctance
The countries which have signed the United Nations Climate Change
Convention, are meeting in the Italian city of Milan this week
and next.
The protocol, negotiated to implement the convention, requires
industrialised countries to cut their emissions of six gases
which scientists believe are exacerbating natural climate change.
Milan meeting, AFP<http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39553000/jpg/_39553264_cop9_afp_203.jpg>
Signatories to Kyoto are currently meeting in Milan
Signatories will by some time between 2008 and 2012 have to cut
emissions to 5.2% below their 1990 levels.
But many scientists say cuts of around 60-70% will be needed by
mid-century to avoid runaway climate change.
The protocol will enter into force when 55 signatories have
ratified it, including industrialised countries responsible for
55% of the developed world's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in
1990.
Some critics say President Bush's decision that the US, which
emits more greenhouse gases than any other country, would not
ratify the protocol has already condemned it to irrelevance.
But enough other signatories have done so for it to enter into
force if Russia, another big polluter responsible for 17% of
global emissions, does decide to ratify.
Copyright 2003, BBC
==========
POWER STRUGGLE IN CANADA OVER KYOTO PROTOCOL
By JOHN IBBITSON
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031203.wxibbits03/BNStory/Front/
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031203.wxibbits03/BNPrint/Front/>
Despite the obfuscations, Paul Martin served notice yesterday
that his government may abandon Canada's commitment to implement
the Kyoto accord fully.
Don't be shocked. Not only the United States, but Russia and most
of Europe, are giving up on the treaty as well. Kyoto is not yet
dead, but it is dying. And Mr. Martin wants to be sure that, if
necessary, Canada can slip quietly away before the funeral.
With China and India not required to reduce emissions, and with
the United States and Australia refusing to ratify the deal, the
international treaty on reducing carbon dioxide emissions will
not come into force unless Russia joins Europe, Japan and Canada
in endorsing its provisions.
But a senior Russian official has revealed that the Putin
administration is unwilling to sign the treaty on the grounds it
could damage what passes for the Russian economy. And the
European Union reported yesterday that 13 of its 15 members are
failing to meet their Kyoto targets. Co2 emissions in Europe are
actually increasing.
Jean Chrétien, this week's prime minister, told reporters that
Canada should live up to its Kyoto commitments, whatever happens.
But Mr. Martin, next week's prime minister, made it clear --
provided one employs a Universal Political Translator -- that he
continues to have grave doubts.
"What we need is a plan," he said. "And that plan
is going to determine our capacity to do so, our ability to do so
and really what are the very important steps. And we have not yet
developed that plan, certainly not to my satisfaction."
Translation: Unless someone can show me how we do this without
wrecking the economy, I'm not on board.
This brings Mr. Martin back to the position he adopted when Mr.
Chrétien first announced Canada would ratify the accord.
The Martin camp was furious that the PM would cavalierly commit
Canada to ratification at an African conference, without any real
consultation and without any idea of how to make the plan work.
No wonder Alberta, Canada's principal producer of fossil fuels,
went ballistic.
So Mr. Martin, who wants to make nice with the West, rumbled his
concern while his advisers warned of dire consequences for the
Canadian economy should Kyoto be implemented. But when the time
came for Parliament to vote on ratification, Mr. Martin went
along.
He hardly wanted to risk bringing down his own party's government
over the issue of protecting the environment.
Since then, the Privy Council Office and the Environment
Department have made progress in developing plans to help Canada
meet its emission-reduction targets. And the big industries --
the heavy emitters, as they are called -- are reluctantly
prepared to live with its provisions. But the plan is not
complete. Much more severe reduction targets lie ahead.
And if Canada were to abide by its commitments while all its
major competitors abandoned theirs, then we would be at a unique
disadvantage.
That was why Mr. Martin raised his warning yesterday. As prime
minister, he is not prepared to lop a point or two off GDP growth
in a quixotic quest for environmental purity that the rest of the
developed world has abandoned.
But he would never be so blunt. After all, most Canadians are
worried about global warming and want Canada to do its part. If
the Liberals were to reverse themselves on Kyoto before the next
federal election, they would enrage the environmentalists and
hand the NDP the wedge issue of their dreams.
So expect Mr. Martin to fudge, to obfuscate, to say, "Let's
be perfectly clear," and then to be anything but. In other
words, expect the sort of thing he said yesterday. But
understand: Kyoto is on life support, not just in Russia, but
here.
The situation is not terminal. According to senior officials,
President Vladimir Putin and his most senior officials have
repeatedly assured Canada in bilateral conversations that Russia
will sign the accord. If so, these latest warnings from Moscow
are simply a bargaining ploy to extract better terms.
If Russia does sign, and if Europe does somehow get its
emission-reduction program back on track, then Mr. Martin will
live up to Canada's Kyoto commitments. To do otherwise would
subject this country to accusations that it has unilaterally
abrogated an international treaty. We don't do things like that.
At this point, though, anyone prepared to bet that Canada will
meet its Kyoto targets should be asking for odds of 10-to-1.
===========
UK Public Sceptical of Kyoto Protocol
From International Policy Network
http://www.enn.com/direct/display-release.asp?objid=D1D1366D000000F93BC3F62F0A5C172E
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Contact: Damian Nixon, +4420-7231-2132, damian@policynetwork.net
Kendra Okonski, +4477-3469 3068, kendra@policynetwork.net
UK public sceptical of Kyoto Protocol
* 57% believe UK should not implement Kyoto if it will harm
Britain's economy
*
70% believe that Britain should pursue alternative, less costly
strategies
3 December 2003, London - A poll commissioned by International
Policy Network, a London-based charity, and conducted by Populus,
a UK-based polling firm*, shows that 57% of the British public
believe that the UK should not implement the Kyoto Protocol if it
causes economic harm and job losses. For young people, the
figures are higher: 68% do not want to sacrifice Britain's jobs
and economic growth to the Kyoto Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol has been widely touted as the world's solution
to global warming. However, studies show that as Kyoto is
implemented during 2008-2010, it is likely to harm Britain's
economy by increasing the price of electricity, fuel and consumer
goods, leading to slower economic growth and higher operating
costs for employers, and causing job losses.**
The poll also reveals that the UK government should consider
alternative, less costly approaches to global warming. 70% of
people polled - and 75% of women polled - believe that if more
cost-effective alternatives to Kyoto exist, Britain should pursue
those strategies.
In light of this data, and decisions by the US, Australian and
Russian governments not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, it is
incumbent upon environment ministers meeting next week in Milan,
Italy, (during the high-level ministerial of the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change COP-9) to propose more
cost-effective strategies to address global warming.
Kendra Okonski, Editor of Adapt or Die: The science, politics and
economics of climate change (Profile Books, December 2003),
comments, "By constraining our ability to grow and adapt,
Kyoto will cause more harm to future generations than the global
warming ever would. Britain's leaders should focus on policies
that promote adaptation, rather than climate control."
Strategies to encourage adaptation, rather than climate control,
could include:
*
Encouraging British investment in transferring more
energy-efficient technologies to those countries whose economies
produce the most carbon emissions, such as India and China.
*
Tax breaks for businesses on R&D of blue-skies research for
new energy technologies.
*
Removing tariffs on less energy-intensive goods and services.
*
Specific measures to address negative impacts of climate change,
such as extreme weather or sea level changes.
# # #
International Policy Network (www.policynetwork.net) is
a London-based charity which coordinates policy activities on the
environment, health, trade and technology.
*Populus interviewed a random sample of 1,001 adults aged 18+ by
telephone between November 28th-30th, 2003. Interviews were
conducted across the country and the results have been weighted
to be representative of all adults.
** "Kyoto Protocol and beyond: The economic cost to four
European countries" (including the UK), DRI-WEFA study
commissioned in 2002 by International Center for Capital
Formation, www.iccfglobal.org
. Study available at: http://www.iccfglobal.org/PDFs/Economic%20Impact%20of%20GHG%20UK.pdf
<http://www.iccfglobal.org/PDFs/Economic%20Impact%20of%20GHG%20UK.pdf>
For more information, contact:
Damian Nixon
Assistant Media Director
International Policy Network
damian@policynetwork.net
<mailto:damian@policynetwork.net>
